Conflicting messages in Methodist church law
Posted March 23, 2007
The denomination's Book of Discipline says that "all persons shall be eligible...when they take the appropriate vows, to be admitted into membership in any local church..."
But it also states that Methodists "do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching..."
The Book of Discipline assumes gays will be members of the church, calling for churches "not to reject or condemn their lesbian and gay members..."
The church's top judicial body sided with a Virginia pastor who declined to allow a gay person to join his congregation.
Statements from the Book of Discipline:
"The United Methodist Church is a part of the church universal, which is one Body in Christ. Therefore all persons shall be eligible to attend its worship services, to participate in its programs, and, when they take the appropriate vows, to be admitted into its membership in any local church in the connection."
"Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth. All persons need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self. Although we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching, we affirm that God's grace is available to all. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn their lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons."
"The church's top judicial body sided with a Virginia pastor who declined to allow a gay person to join his congregation." (Emphasis added.)
Perhaps it was unintentional, but your statement hits on the legal point that many of us in The United Methodist Church find particularly worrisome. Just whose congregation is it, anyway? The individual wanted to join but the senior pastor refused. The bishop directed the pastor to allow the individual to join and again the pastor refused. I think that most of the congregation was aware of the individual's status and yet was ready to welcome him as a brother in Christ.
A split Judicial Council ruled that the senior pastor had the final say on the matter. Not the congregation, not the other staff, not the district board, not the annual conference. That's a lot of power with not much accountability wrapped up in one person. Contrast that to the actions of the bishops, who humbly abide by the ruling while speaking prophetically against it.
Our denomination is one that thrives on connections and conversation. We present ourselves as having "Open hearts, open minds, open doors". Unfortunately, a few of our members disagree with that heritage.